From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql |
Date: | 2000-01-31 15:29:07 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10001311625250.12762-100000@Hund.DoCS.UU.SE |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> writes:
> > This is not a bogosity if you read and understand the psql grammar.
>
> In other words, you have (by fiat and with no discussion AFAIR) decided
> to change psql's "grammar" so that its handling of names is inconsistent
> with the backend's. That might be OK if psql were an independent
> product, but it's not. There are already enough discrepancies between
> parsing of backslash commands and parsing of SQL commands; do we need
> to add more?
I have written so many requests for comments on psql, I don't know. This
handling of names was nowhere documented, so I couldn't have known it. On
the other hand, the current behaviour is documented and consistent with
something at least. I totally see what you're saying and I'm going to try
to address it. But there was noone who said anything about this so far.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-31 15:30:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-01-31 15:26:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql |